Partly allowed

Sukumar.S.K v. District Rural Development Agency (Drda)

Madras HC15 Dec 2023WP(MD)/2002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the respondents to remit a portion of the disputed contract amount to a civil suit filed by a third party. It further ordered the return of expired bank guarantees and dismissed remaining claims, leaving the dispute's merits for the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to remit Rs.94,06,667/- to the civil court account and return original expired bank guarantees to the petitioner.

Sukumar.S.K Vs District Rural Development… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.1725 of 2022

S.K.Sukumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.District Rural Development Agency (DRDA),

¶11

Represented by its Chairman/

¶12

District Collector,

¶13

Collectorate Campus,

¶14

Dindigul District - 624 004.

¶15

2.The Project Director

¶16

District Rural Development Agency-Dindigul, Collectorate Campus,

¶17

Dindigul District - 624 004.

¶18

1/7

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

3.Rajarajeshwara Constructions A Registered Partnership Firm Represented by its Partner Mr.M.N.Sridhar, Having Office at No.6C, New No.7C, Directors Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶21

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,84,99,200/(Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred Only) being amounts payable under the Agreement dated 12.09.2016 and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards refund of Earnest Money Deposit and to return the original expired Bank Guarantee No.1477161GFIN0001, Dena Bank, Dindigul for Rs.25,00,000/- and original expired Bank Guarantee No.2981ILG000216, Punjab National Bank, Dindigul for Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner herein morefully described in the Scheduled hereunder.

¶24

2/7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa

¶28

For Respondents: Mr.M.Prakash – for R1 & R2

¶29

Additional Government Pleader

¶30

Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar – for R3

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side

¶33

The petitioner entered into a contract with respondents

¶34

1 and 2 for supply of LED lights. The petitioner had sourced his supplies from the third respondent. The case of the third respondent is that the petitioner has not settled their bills. The third respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, for recovery of money from the Writ Petitioner herein. Citing the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 had not released the payment. That led to the filing of this Writ Petition.

¶35

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned

¶36

counsel appearing for the third respondent drew my attention to the

¶37

3/7

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶40

legal notice, dated 11.02.2019 issued by the writ petitioner, in which, it has been agreed by the petitioner that he owes to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,85,000/- to the third respondent. There is nothing on record to show that subsequent to this legal notice, the liability was cleared.

¶41

Even though the jurisdictional civil Court is seized of the matter, this Court cannot lose sight of the aforesaid concession made by the petitioner in his legal notice.

¶42

According to the respondents 1 and 2, they have to pay only a further sum of Rs.94,06,667/-. Even while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remit the aforesaid amount of Rs.94,06,667/- to the credit of O.S.No.66 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul. This shall be done by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the performance period had already expired, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to return the

¶43

4/7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶46

original bank guarantee papers to the petitioner, so as to facilitate the

¶47

petitioner to revoke the bank guarantee. This shall be done by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the other issues of both the parties are left open.

¶48

Since the suit was filed by the third respondent in the

¶49

year 2019, it shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, within a period

¶50

of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. No

¶52

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶53

15.12.2023

¶54

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No RM

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

5/7

¶57

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶58

Copy to :

¶59

The Principal District Judge, Dindigul.

¶60

To:

¶61

1.District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Represented by its Chairman/ District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Dindigul District - 624 004.

¶62

2.The Project Director District Rural Development Agency-Dindigul, Collectorate Campus, Dindigul District - 624 004.

¶63

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶65

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶66

¶67

W.P(MD)No.2002 of 2022

¶68

15.12.2023

¶69

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sukumar.S.K v. District Rural Development Agency (Drda)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar.S.K v. District Rural Development Agency (Drda)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Sivamani Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

Mohammed Mydeen .S Vs The Regional Passport Offier

Ramaraj.M Vs The District Registrar

Bogusiya S Vs The Assistant Engineer

Bala Ganesan S Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration